Springer wrote:Evolution, as it is argued, cannot be proven wrong. It is non-falsifiable and therefore should be disregarded as science, according to the evolutionists' own criteria.

Now I get turned around sometimes when addressing logic, but I think that the above is a false statement. The Scientific Method is about making hypotheses based on observations then seeking to refute them. I'm afraid that the polarization caused by the evolution/creationism/ID debate has caused some shady science, further compounding the problem.
Evolution as a process is refutable, and observable in any ecological study. The part of the theory that addresses the origins of life is also refutable, as it postulates a set of scientific circumstances required in order for the theory to work. It is not set in stone, and in fact the attempts of people to disprove it are welcome and encouraged as necessary steps in the scientific process. If it is proved that amino acids could not assemble randomly, very well, then that refutes that hypothesis of origins, but it does not preclude the formation of new hypotheses. Scientists, while they don't like to be wrong, can take back hypotheses they've supported without rejecting the principles upon which their hypotheses are based.
If someone was to absolutely prove origins evolution false, it would not disprove the principles of science, nor would it even disprove the process of microevolution. It would simply spawn a new line of scientific inquiry.
Now if someone was to absolutely disprove Creation (which is of course impossible) or Intelligent Design (Also almost... impossible...?) what would that do to the beliefs upon which these ideas are based?

That's all for now. I hope I'm not just rehashing what everyone else has already said. This is a huge thread and I haven't read it all yet.
Dave

The general theory of evolution, as it is argued, is not falsifiable and not science. The reason is that evolution assumes that ID is non-existent. Therefore, there is only one choice... evolution! Evolution becomes true by default. Just listen to any evolutionist argue his point. He will always say that the general theory is true, while mechanisms are up for debate. If a particular mechanism is proven invalid, another proposal will surface, but all within the general framework of evolution, because it is always assumed to be true.
Evolution is a belief system based on assumptions. Evolutionists willingly proclaim that ID is non-falsifiable. If that is true, then why do they dismiss as a possibility something that they agree cannot be falsified? Why do they always assume that all answers fall within the framework of evolutionary thinking? The only answer I ever hear is, "ID is not science, so it cannot be considered." That is irrational thinking.
The argument of abiogenesis is a classic example of how evolution cannot be falsified. There is no evidence that abiogenesis is possible. There is no continuity between non-life and life in nature. The simplest form of single-cell life is so exceedingly complex that it is impossible to conceive of how it could have formed on its own. Those who suggest that this provides evidence of intellligent design are told that they should just believe it happened. We need to be patient and realize that some day future research will demonstrate how it all happened within the framework of evolution. If abiogenesis is possible, then everyone must admit that unknown laws and conditions were operative in the ancient past. If you allow such an argument to be admitted into a scientific discussion, any false theory could be defended.

Just to let you know a good scientist should never state a theory as true. A theory has loads of evidence to support it and so far no credible evidence to disprove of it. If someone were to undoubtedly disprove evolution then the theory would be dropped. However there would probably be a lot of baffled scientists that would do more research to try and disprove what disproved evolution or use what was disproven for further research. Scientists, like every human being, don't like to be proven wrong, but if that occurs are very acceptable of it. Also, I have never met a scientist who wasn't open minded on ID (although I'm sure that there are some who would make an exception). I personally consider the two to work well together. Also there are some experiments that have occurred at CERN using antimatter and another famous experiment known as the Miller-Urey Experiment that show some possible evidence of abiogenesis.

Just to let you know a good scientist should never state a theory as true.

Evolutionists are always stating that evolution is a fact.

Also, I have never met a scientist who wasn't open minded on ID

If by "scientist" you mean, "evolutionist", then I would disagree. When confronted, they will give "lip service" only to the plausibility of ID. It is never seriously considered as a tenable hypothesis.

(although I'm sure that there are some who would make an exception). I personally consider the two to work well together.

I would agree with you in principle, but that is not how evolution is viewed. It is always assumed that ID is non-existent and that natural selection is an all powerful force in nature. Every attempt is made to explain everything only in terms of materialistic processes. Natural selection works by increased reproductive success of those with fortuitous favorable mutations. The possibility that this is biologically impossible and that ID might be required is never entertained.

Also there are some experiments that have occurred at CERN using antimatter and another famous experiment known as the Miller-Urey Experiment that show some possible evidence of abiogenesis.

The Miller-Urey experiment proved that a racemicmixture of amino acids could be produced under controlled conditions. It proved nothing more. It is a huge and unwarranted extrapolation to suggest that this offers any evidence that life could form from non-life. No experiment in the annals of science has indicated that abiogenesis is possible. Everything we observe tells us that it's impossible.

Springer
I just wanted to state my opinion just like you have been. Anyways I find arguing over whether evolution or ID is true or false is a waste of time since the argument will never end. I just wanted to defend evolutionists (scientists) that are being attacked by your own opinion. So I'll go quoting from Seinfeld in saying "You dip the way you wanna dip, I'll dip the way I wanna dip."

I have discovered that Springer likes to dish out attacks on others opinions on this site, but yet his "opinions" are always the right ones it seems. It is intriguing that you have some sort of secret as to the origins of the universe and life itself. If you are correct and everyone else is wrong, then perhaps you should publish all of your "fact-based" research and become more famous than Darwin himself.

"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes take two more. Help is on the way."
----- Voice from the Medicine Cabinet

Now Now kids lets play nice. Springer is at least appealing to logic somewhat in his arguments. I'd like to discuss further the differences in logic between ID/creationism and science/evolution.
It is sad but true that some evolutionists get caught up in the ideas and principles of the theory that they begin to treat it as dogma rather than science. Consequently they begin attempting to use science to prove Their point rather than being objective. The same can be seen in the field of Environmental Science. I think it's important for us to recognize this and step back and ask ourselves, why are we arguing? Is it a matter of principle? Do you think you already know the truth and are attempting to use any evidence to your advantage? Or is it a matter of attempting to find the truth? I think people generally seek to find quick answers to the big questions and then spend the rest of their lives trying to prove to themselves and everyone else that they're right. I know I do it. I try not to, but I do.

What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"

First of all, Springer, I want to make this very clear, because I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Evolution and abiogenesis are not as irrevocably linked as you claim. Just read the works of St. Augustine, who wrote in the fourth century AD, and was one of the leading evolutionists of the late Roman world, and he explains it very clearly that evolution is about how life developed after it originated, not about how it originated. Fast forward about a millenia and a half to Darwin's day, and Darwin made exactly the same point. As do evolutionists today. You claim that this separation between abiogenesis and evolution is just a modern-day convenience, but a careful analysis of the subject shows that the two have always been separate.

As for australopithecus, yes it could be classified as an ape, and so could humans. What's your point?

As for ambulocetus, no it was not a simple quadraped! It was an amphibious mammal that lived a life similar to crocodiles, the exact sort of "missing link" I would expect.

I agree that some (but by no means many) people do take evolution way too dogmatically, but just because some people interpret it wrongly doesn't make the science itself flawed. You have yet to address my point about Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, three faiths that follow the same God. Is God's existence proven false just because one faith interprets it differently from the other two? As a Catholic, I certainly hope not.

Lastly, your main argument for not trusting evolution is that, as you say, evolutionary researchers have a preconceived notion that evolution is true, and their research is thereby biased and unreliable. Yet you seem to have a preconceived notion that evolution is false, so why should we trust you when your very own logic shows you to be untrustworthy?

First of all, Springer, I want to make this very clear, because I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Evolution and abiogenesis are not as irrevocably linked as you claim. Just read the works of St. Augustine, who wrote in the fourth century AD, and was one of the leading evolutionists of the late Roman world, and he explains it very clearly that evolution is about how life developed after it originated, not about how it originated. Fast forward about a millenia and a half to Darwin's day, and Darwin made exactly the same point. As do evolutionists today. You claim that this separation between abiogenesis and evolution is just a modern-day convenience, but a careful analysis of the subject shows that the two have always been separate.

The reason abiogenesis and evolution are linked is because both are materialistic explanations of life, and both deny the existence of intelligent design.

As for australopithecus, yes it could be classified as an ape, and so could humans. What's your point?

Humans are not classified as apes. My point is that you cannot prove that australopithecus was any less of an ape or any more "human" than a chimpanzee.

As for ambulocetus, no it was not a simple quadraped! It was an amphibious mammal that lived a life similar to crocodiles, the exact sort of "missing link" I would expect.

That is a very subjective interpretation, and not all agree with that. Even if you are correct, that in no way proves that it is ancestral to whales. Seals are amphibious mammals and do not qualify as transitionals.

I agree that some (but by no means many) people do take evolution way too dogmatically, but just because some people interpret it wrongly doesn't make the science itself flawed. You have yet to address my point about Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, three faiths that follow the same God. Is God's existence proven false just because one faith interprets it differently from the other two? As a Catholic, I certainly hope not.

I agree with you. I'm not trying to argue the fallacy of evolution because of the way it's argued by some... I agree that God could have used evolution to conduct the creative process. I just don't see the evidence that he did.

Lastly, your main argument for not trusting evolution is that, as you say, evolutionary researchers have a preconceived notion that evolution is true, and their research is thereby biased and unreliable. Yet you seem to have a preconceived notion that evolution is false, so why should we trust you when your very own logic shows you to be untrustworthy

When I was in college I believed in theistic evolution. I have approached this debate in a very open minded way. I've always believed that intelligent design existed. But I have been open minded to the possibility of evolution. You cannot overemphasize the problem of bias in any scientific research. Categorically dismissing the possibility that intelligent design exists in nature under the pretext that it's "religion" and out of the realm of science is unscientific and completely illogical. You have only one other choice.... evolution. You can always think of an explanation that will fit evolution, because the theory is always open-ended. It can always be modified in some way to fit the facts... and that is exactly what has happened over the past 150 years. No one has proven that ID doesn't exist, so why assume that it doesn't exist?

AstusAleator wrote:Now Now kids lets play nice. Springer is at least appealing to logic somewhat in his arguments. I'd like to discuss further the differences in logic between ID/creationism and science/evolution. […]

I have tried to discuss with Springer at the beginning. He seemed at first open minded and less a parrot repeating the same learned (but not understood) "rebuttall" to evolution than the average creationist/IDer.
But I soon found out that he had some nasty little habits that made any further discussion impossible:
- He is using and abusing double standard demanding evolution to fit some criteria that ID is not even remotely closer to fit, but considering them as strong proof for his case.
- He pretends to be open-minded but when proved wrong never accept to recognize
- Have no knowledge of the basic of science philosophy (and refuse to acquire any) and then have a completely wrong vision of what is science, and why ID cannot become an alternative to evolution.

I am ready to listen to everybody who could come with a scientific alternative to evolution. Something that makes hypothesis, gather facts and links them in a theoritical frame and makes assumption about them. Just Like evolution started with fossils and live animals, offered a frame to explain their differences and similiraty and the inter-relationship in an ecosystem. later the discovery of the genetic would fit in this frame. Give details of the forces and the inner working loosely described/desired by Darwin. And if all the details are not yet known and understood, they still fit in the large and unchanged frame of the theory. And, as a matter of fact, some people still complain that biology has yet to fuly give to evolution and accept it more completely including in the gene regulations and more molecular mechanisms that are still described in a very deterministic way (I feel close to this kind of thought).
But someone has yet to come with a scientific alternative to evolution. ID by being unable to make any supposition on what its limits are (God almighty not being bound by any rules) is definitely disqualified.

Facing this kind of discussion I decided to stop arguing with him, but I still would be happy to discuss with anybody with interesting claims and open-minded.

Cheers

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)